tv The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Comedy Central March 29, 2013 1:00am-1:30am PDT
this summer. next week i'll be in one of your crappy towns live, follow me on twitter or blog. we'll continue to be updated during our break. our store will not. before we go i'm excited to introduce to you a new segment called lightly touching will's stomachs while they're sitting down. [ laughter ] it's not what you think. this is where you sneak up behind women who are sitting down and lightly put your han on their stomach. make sure she's aware that you are in fact feeling a roll. [ laughter ] >> okay, guys. during our break i needed you to film yourself lightly touching
women's stomach. be careful. they like to pretend they don't love it. when a tv show is about to be cancelled fans sometimes start campaign to save it by sending stupid stuff into the network. they sent in penis, on reaper they sent in socks, some sent in skittles. unfortunately there's no danger of that happening to this show. just taking a break for a few weeks. i want my vacation to be longer. much longer. i'm starting a campaign against tosh.0 cancel. here's comedy central's address. i want you to start mailing them cheese. yeah, cheese. any kind you want. send them a wheel, a wedge, a cube. the smellier the better. if i don't come back it's because you did a good job. good night. oh. and a special thanks to all the designers whose outfits i made look so amazing. [ laughter ] [ applause ]
[ applause ] from comedy central's world news headquarters in new york, this is "the daily show" with jon stewart. ["daily show" theme song playing] [cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome to "the daily show". my name is jon stewart. got a good one tonight our guest tonight denise kiernan she's written a book begun an untold story about the women involved in this town in oak ridge, tennessee in the manhattan project. a fascinated book. down at the united states supreme court where america's top nine justices spent two full days enjoying gay oral. [laughter]
arguments. [ laughter ] they were hearing oral arguments -- [laughter] -- on the constitutionality of the federal defense of marriage act and california's proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage. you would think that the main arguments against the gay marriage would have a element of moral outrage it's adam and eve, not adam steve. god would want to you make love something torn from your own rib cage. it's not like adam had a lot of options. it was either her or the snake. with the snake you don't even know -- all right. [ laughter ] but unfortunately for gay marriage opponents, the broad moral argument had been deemed just ten years earlier by this court to be unconstitutional
since to the landmark case in texas in which justice anthony kennedy wrote for the majority that quote we as the nation cannot abide the banning of butt sex purely on the basis of its punitive yucky factor. [ laughter ] and i can assure you that i'm not paraphasing this judicial opinion. that is what he wrote. google butt sex supreme and i think you will find out -- [laughter] anyway, the point is this: [laughter] kennedy's point was that moral disapproval in the absence of other harm could not be the sole basis for prohibition go. to litigator mr. paul clement argued that the defense of marriage act was not morality based when it was signed in 1996 but until fact merely an effort to unify federal standards to
recognizing marriage licenses. just trying to avoid confusion, you know, in the same way that we don't have any way have interstate driving and hunting lie soarnses lawyers lie soarnses heterosexual marriage licenses which different states have different laws form of i'll just let justice elena kagan -- i'll let her handle it. >> do we really think that congress was doing this for uniformity reasons? or do we think that congress's judgment was infested by the fear, by animus and so forth? >> jon: fascinating. mr. clement? >> the other point i would make but i want to get around to the animus point. but the other point i would make is when you look at congress doing something that is unusual,
they deviated from it in the past. >> jon: i'm going to cut you off right there my friend. beautiful since you are only going to get around to the animus point eventually -- [laughter] -- perhaps we could go back to 1996 with some kind of crazy time machine and listen to some of congress's good reasons for having doma. let me just reiterate this is from 1996, not 1956. >> most people don't approve of homosexual conduct. >> it's inherently wrong and harmful to individual families and society. >> an attack upon god's principles. >> the very foundations of our society are endangered of being burned. the family unit is the foundation of society. >> jon: we cannot abide anything licking at the foundation of our units. [ laughter ] we allow the licking of our
units -- [laughter] -- strongly slide up and down the pillars of our society. [ laughter ] ultimately gobbling our morality down to the hilt, gagging on our -- wait -- what re with talking about again? [laughter] unless you believe we are cherry picking floor debates lowlights highlighting the morality arguments we'll have justice kagan read from the summary of deliberation in 1996 to see if the writers of defense of marriage act did so with moral intent. >> i'm going to quote from the house report here is that congress decided to reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality. is that what happened in 1996? >> does the house report say that? [laughter] >> jon: does it -- is that
what it says? if it pleases the court, i'd like to wipe my brow comically now. [ laughter ] ooooh, perhaps approach the bench -- [laughter] but with moral arguments no longer availability to opponents of same-sex marriage what is left for the conservatives to argue? let's let justice scalia take a crack at it. >> if you redefine marriage to same sex couples you must permit adoption by same sex couples. >> jon: everything sounds so far. this say disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in the sex of a -- in a single sex family whether it's harmful to the child or not. >> jon: may i approach the grinch, dick shall bench, bench. [ laughter ] there isn't disagreement.
the american acad-peed attics say there's no relationship web parents sexual or yenation or children's well being. and second of all if the new standard for recognizing marriage is whether or not the couple would make good parents, you antonin scalia should get cable because -- it looks like -- [cheers and applause] if i'm not mistaken the consequences -- the consequences of heterosexual child rearing are pretty severe and those are just the heteros that let people film them. [ laughter ] so heterosexualed are allowed to be (bleep) parents. what is the next argument. >> same-sex marriage is very new. i think it was first adopted in the netherlands in 2000 so there
isn't a lot of data about its success. you want us to step in and render a decision on an assessment of this institution newer than cell phones or the internet? [laughter] >> jon: no we want to you render a decision based on whether it's right and fair and just under the constitution having nothing to do with its newness and what you think might happen. which by the way what do you think might snap that they discover letting two ladies get married will rip open a hole in the ozone layer. gay marriage will cause less national harm than cell phones or the internet. [cheers and applause] here is the thing that i'm pretty sure you don't have to do. [cheers and applause] you don't have to beta test right. black people have only been here 50 years.
let's see how the netherlands does with them before we lift the bearers. while the legal arguments are clearly fascinating, i wonder if there was a more human element in all that this could demystify the issue for the conservative justices. >> at the heart of this case is the story of these women. it's a story that spans 40 years. this is how long edie wincer was with her partner. >> when my beautiful sparkling partner died four years ago. i was over come with grief. i realized the federal government was treating us as strangers. >> jon: incredibly adorable woman grieving the loss of her spouse in every conceivable way except in the eyes of the law. can we just move to justice? [laughter] of course not. there's an issue that i think
the conservative justices will get hit home with. >> when spire passed away she was hit with a $360,000 federal estate tax bill money she would not have to paid if he is she was married to a man. >> jon: (bleep) injustice the right may not recognize true love but they recognize the heartbreak that is double ion.ation.>> jon: welcome back e
show. last week. we talked about last week. we learned that another jewel of american journalism sup for sale with the reports that the 132 "los angeles times" was up for sale. interesting names. rupert murdoch very interested in the "los angeles times". >> jon: the death was no accident it was -- [laughter] murdoch. [ laughter ] there's one problem for the media mogul he owns two television stations in los angeles, ktov and ktrv. you wouldn't want rupert murdoch to become disproportionately volatile. you could take his ambitions
else where or petition the government for a waiver. yeah, codo that. [ laughter ] -- he could do that. [ laughter ] rupert murdoch clearly considers himself a special case to ask the american people for the privilege. i'd like to give him a fair hearing. let's take care of business. here we go. let's do it over here. here we go. mr. murdoch, i have your resume right here. please, take a seat. have you ever owned a newspaper previously? >> yes. [laughter] >> jon: dingo got your tongue, eh? [laughter] here it is "news of the world." or should i say you used to own that. how did it work out. >> six former staffers have been arrested accused of listening to people's private voicemails. >> hying into voicemail messages of among others the royal family, celebrities and even a murdered teenager. >> we find news corporation
carried out an extensive coverup of rampant law breaking. >> jon: okay. [laughter] and now you would like a waiver to have another whack at a newspaper? [laughter] i assume you are asking us to waif -- waive our laws as a courtesy so you don't have to break them. are you the type of newspaper owner that interferes with editorial policy. and if you could answer that question as a much younger man perhaps giving insight into the foundation of your editorial philosophy. we would like to see that as well. >> how do you see the role of a proprietor? would you interfere in editorial policy if snenches yes, i would. >> stephen: that was done two years ago and it shows the toll that rampant law making -- law breaking i should say -- both. [ laughter ] anyway look we want to say yes
to you but we need your assurance that would never use this extraordinary media reach of television and newspapers to change the political agenda, throw an election, that sort of thing. that's not why you are in the business, is it? >> if you can stimulate the conversation you can change the agenda. >> he claimed to have won an election single handed. >> jon: thanks for coming by. we have to decline your waiver. the law against media consolidation was clearly with people like you in mind. well, actually you in particular. because of how you like to do the exact thing the law -- what is that there, 1993? >> rupert murdoch news corp owns fox and "the new york post" a local newspaper. me to get a waiver to buy "the new york post".
[cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome back. my guest tonight an author. the new book is called the girls of atomic pity the untold story of women who helped win world war ii. please welcome to the program denise kiernan. [cheers and applause] >> thanks for having me. [cheers and applause] >> jon: thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. it's great to be here.
>> jon: i love these kinds of books and this is a great one. this is "the girls of atomic city." it takes a moment in history that we all think we know very well, sort of mant manhattan project and los alamos and all that. tell us the story. >> that's it exactly when so many of us, myself included when i think about the manhattan project or when i thought about it i thought about robert oppenheimer and when you found out about oak ridge, this town in tennessee, built from scratch in 1942 for the sole purpose of enriching fuel for the first atomic bomb. of the primary manhattan project sites this was the most populous and the administrative headquarters for the whole manhattan project and the majority of people working there were young women. >> jon: right and it was
75,000, 80,000 people. >> 75,000 people and when they first broke ground in 1942 and were planning to build they thought 13,000. we'll probably have 13,000 people living here. by the middle of 1945, 75,000 people, plants running 24-hours a day, 24-hour bowling and roller skating. it was a massive, massive town. >> jon: the crazy thing is they have no idea what they are doing there. >> yes, yes. there's that part, yes. so the majority of people who worked there were trained to do very specific tasks. for example, you are testing pipes. >> jon: sure. >> pipe comes in. how are these welds? >> jon: pipe tester. >> they look pretty g. i interviewed this one woman this is what she did. i said what did you think you were doing? this is what i thought where are the pipes coming from?
that door? what where are they going? that door. what is behind that door? probably more pipes. this was her view of manhattan project. there was another woman i interviewed, her friend was convinced they were doing something with urine. [ laughter ] okay? [laughter] because this is her view of the project. she worked in processing so all day she would help -- people came in and did samples, she collected them, put their name on them and she's thinking huh, these other people might not know what is going on but i know what is going on here. >> jon: she thought it was a urine and bowling and roller skating facility. they had -- she had no idea. >> everybody's daily experience filtered their view of what was going on. they trained everybody so well. if you were a chemist or
physicist you were putting things together. but testing pipes or a secretary, most people had zero idea. >> jon: there were people working on the actual enrichment of this fissile material. >> yes. >> jon: where aren't they dead of tumors and such? and you said -- >> that in many ways is a story still being written. seriously because what was going on during that time and it depended on where you worked. so if you were a secretary in an office building, risk of exposure was low. if you were operating some of the machines, the machines enriching uranium you were in a separate room from where the uranium was being -- the isotopes were being separated. if you were working in a facility where there was plutonium, your risks would have been greater.
they were trying to figure out back then how much exposure is too much? >> jon: that's why they were taking their urine and they wanted to know -- >> they were trying to figure out, learning as much as they could about the risks while enriching the fuels of bomb. >> jon: one of the interesting things i thought was it was progressive in a sense of empowering the women working there. >> absolutely. >> jon: but regressive in terms of dealing with the races. it's a strange dichotomy in the town. >> yes. it was. so it's world war ii. across the country it's an incredible moment for the women. they are having students that many of them never had before operating equipment and central jobs and -- industrial jobs and making good money and things of that nature. this was the south in 1942 and oak ridge really was a